Status Update On Niemann Litigation

@Nomoreusernames said in #37
>Magnus Carlsen has cheated repeatedly in the past, as evidenced by video. Let me know if you haven't seen the videos of Clarsen cheating, and I will post them again.
@Alientcp said in #38:
> Tu quoque.
On the contrary, I am only pointing out that Magnus has cheated many times on video, in light of his statement about supposedly doing "something about cheating". I am not defending Niemann against cheating online.

@Alientcp said in #38:
> He did not state "We must do something about cheating" in the same paragraph where he talked about his opinions and actions. When there is a period and another paragraph starts means that the first idea ended and a new one started. Obviously they are somewhat connected to the main topic, but not necessarily both paragraphs are connected between them.
It's difficult to maintain that doing something about cheating didn't refer to neither the previous paragraph where Carlsen said he believed Niemann was cheating, nor the next paragraph where he said that his actions clearly stated he did not want to play against Niemann, and to then claim that the interlude was out of the remit of the paragraphs that sandwich it. It's difficult to defend Carlsen by finding alternate meanings of words and sentences as another possible interpretation, because the new meanings also have to fit the context. There are very few people trying to claim Carlsen's innocence on this matter, and on good merit. I am on your side with respect to how the media has handled this, but they have not misspoken on this matter, Carlsen has accused Niemann.

@Alientcp said in #38:
> Those quotes are from distinct parts of the original statement, again, separated by paragraphs, Those are separated ideas united by the main statement, but putting them together as if he actually said it the way you make it its just twisting what he originally said
I have stated what he has said, but sometimes people can't remember what was said a few sentences before, so I am just leaving out the trivial stuff and whinging, like "while outplaying me as black in way only a handful of players can." You have said that the media is wrong in claiming Magnus accused Niemann, and I am saying it is all right there. If you have an alternate understanding of the statement, in which Carlsen avoids accusing Niemann, it still needs to make sense.

@Alientcp said in #38:
> He didnt accused anyone. Stating Nieman cheated in the past isnt an accusation, its a fact.
Just because there is no video evidence of Niemann like there is for Magnus cheating, doesn't mean that Niemann didn't cheat. Magnus trying to claim that he cheated against him at Sinquefield Cup is different to online cheating, of which Magnus is unquestionably himself guilty.

@Nomoreusernames said in #29:
>"We must do something about cheating."
@Alientcp said in #32:
>Dont you agree this statement is perfectly reasonable in any sport/competition? It doesnt matter if some one has been accused or not, the statement by itself is reasonable and any competitor in any discipline should agree with it.
@Nomoreusernames said in #34:
>Magnus Carlsen has cheated repeatedly in the past, as evidenced by video. Let me know if you haven't seen the videos of Carlsen cheating, and I will post them again. The solution is to take account of your own actions, not to try get your ego back from a terrible loss by attacking a teenagers character. Magnus is 31 years old, he is not a kid any more!
@Alientcp said in #38:
> I agree 100%.
Thanks, I filled in some of the stuff you left out between the quotes to keep the perspective true.

@Nomoreusernames said in #29:
>Magnus has said he is not willing to play Niemann, as "we must do something about cheating" and his "actions have stated clearly that (he) is not willing to play chess with Niemann."
@Alientcp said in #38:
> Nope. Magnus said he is not willing to play Niemann. Yes. You cant force him to do so. Thats his choice. The same way FIDE cant force him to defend his title. Its a choice.
There is no "nope" to answer, it's not a matter of opinion, it is what Magnus said. Nobody is arguing that he is compelled to play chess, this discussion is about Magnus accusing Niemann. If you argue every sentence Magnus has said with something some other point that he was perhaps making or whether it's fair to not play chess etc., it still doesn't change the fact that Carlsen accused Niemann.

@Alientcp said in #38:
> The other part "we must do something about cheating". He is talking about cheating in general, as you can clearly see, its on another paragraph, and I agree with that statement. You are the one connecting the dots, but they are clearly separated ideas. The rest of the idea, he refers to Neimann's cheating past, which again, it isnt a slander, its a fact.
I am not connecting the dots, Magnus is. You can't expect people to think Magnus was trying to not make sense, just when it comes time to assess what he said. The paragraph is there for a reason, and it is the only sensible way to read it. It's not a Monty Python sketch.

@Alientcp said in #38:
>Blind idolisation is not a secure method for rational thought.
> ?? Free speech is in jeopardy and you think im defending Carlsen because im a fan? Silly you.
Free speech is when people are allowed to express their opinions. After losing fairly to Niemann, Magnus insinuated and implied for weeks that Niemann had cheated against him. Magnus then confirmed his actions in a statement. The evidence thoroughly and rigorously points to Niemann beating Magnus fair and square. If Niemann doesn't stand up to Magnus, Hikaru and chess.corn, those with lacklustre morals still be trying to spread fiction about a teenager wearing "Magnus" beads. Magnus seems to be aspiring to the Hikaru and chess.corn poor ethics, and that is certainly not worthy of respect, you should be wiser than to conflate it with "free speech". It would be much better for them to lose this court case, than to have these kinds of actions positively reinforced. By the way, do you know of anyone guilty of cheating, who has more video proof of them cheating, than we have of Magnus Carlsen cheating? I am wondering if Magnus has the most footage showing him cheating in online chess in the world.

@Nomoreusernames said in #41:
> On the contrary, I am only pointing out that Magnus has cheated many times on video, in light of his statement about supposedly doing "something about cheating". I am not defending Niemann against cheating online.

As i said, tu quoque. It doesnt matter if others have cheated. They are not the ones opting to not play, It is irrelevant if Magnus has cheated or not.

> It's difficult to maintain that doing something about cheating didn't refer to neither the previous paragraph where Carlsen said he believed Niemann was cheating, nor the next paragraph where he said that his actions clearly stated he did not want to play against Niemann,

2 paragraphs before he said cheating is an existential treat to the game. Which it is in any sport. I dont know why you arent linking to that paragraph. Because you are constructing a narrative that is not there.

> I have stated exactly what he has said,

But not in order or the ideas behind that. In other words, out of the specific context, and thus, twisting words to make other meaning than the intended.
>
>
> Just because there is no video evidence of Niemann like there is for Magnus cheating, doesn't mean that Niemann didn't cheat.

Niemann admitted to have cheated in the past.

> There is no "nope" to answer, it's not a matter of opinion, it is what Magnus said.

He stated an opinion.

>Nobody is arguing that he is compelled to play chess, this discussion is about Magnus accusing Niemann.

I dont see it.

>If you conflate every sentence Magnus has said with something which could be construed as an argument for something else, it still doesn't change the fact that Carlsen accused Niemann.

Its implying Niemann cheated, of course. I understand it, but I dont see the accusation. Its a belief/opinion he has, correct or incorrect, but an opinion non the less.

> I am not connecting the dots, Magnus is. You can't expect people to think Magnus was trying to not make sense, just when it comes time to assess what he said. The paragraph is there for a reason, and it is the only sensible way to read it. It's not a Monty Python sketch.

He makes perfect sense, he thinks Niemann cheated in st. louis. He may have additional information that we dont have to make him believe that. Still no accusation, just stating his opinion.

> Free speech is when people are allowed to express their opinions.

Well, Magnus expressed his opinion. He thinks Niemann cheated. And thats exactly the point, if you cant have negative opinions because they can be labeled as slander or defamation, then, there is no free speech. That is why there must be a clear difference between an actual defamation (as in Amber accusing J publicly from hitting her, with a police report in hand for instance) and some one expressing a negative opinion about something or someone.

>After losing fairly to Niemann, Magnus insinuated and implied for weeks that Niemann had cheated against him. Magnus then confirmed his actions in a statement.

Thought he went silent for a while. I dont follow him. But i everyone is talking about the statement, not the other stuff. I dont see any accusation in the statement.

>The evidence thoroughly and rigorously points to Niemann beating Magnus fair and square.
Cant tell, i dont follow either.

But i did saw a video implying Niemann's accuracy in games was quite unusual and above basically all top GM's.

>If Niemann doesn't stand up to Magnus, Hikaru and chess.corn, those with lacklustre morals still be trying to spread fiction about a teenager wearing "Magnus" beads. Magnus seems to be aspiring to the Hikaru and chess.corn poor ethics, and that is certainly not worthy of respect, you should be wiser than to conflate it with "free speech".

Im not sure if they made such statements.
I just think that The suit against Carlsen wont have a favorable result for Niemann.
Against Hikaru, no idea, i dont follow him either (i dont follow any chess celebrity, dont do much social media.)
I think Niemann was uninvited from an event, unsure if it was on chess com or other. If it was chess com, they are private and they reserve the right to do what they please, and Niemann cheated there i think, so they have a claim why they uninvited.

determining if Magnus's written statement constitute a full fledged accusation of cheating or not is meaningless.

>how the statements are presented and whether they would be understood to be an opinion by a reasonable person will be taken into consideration when determining if the statements are defamatory.

while true, the above article is a general idea and will not be significant in Magnus's defense.

in the U.S. the bar for slander is very high due to the existence of the 1st amendment and trying to preserves it. you will basically have to prove 1)malicious intent, AND 2)that the offending party knew they were lying.

plus, you need to prove this BEYOND a reasonable doubt. not the other way around. Just raising a doubt isn't enough.

concretely, Hans NEED TO PROVE, again BEYOND a reasonable doubt, 1)that Magnus knew his statements were a big pile of lies, AND 2)these lies were expressed with the intent of causing him (to Hans specifically) an avalanches of negative effects in order to end his career, rather than maybe bringing the rampant cheating problem to light, for instance. It's Hans's job to prove BOTH conditions in order to demonstrate he was defamed by Magnus.

even if the damage to Hans's career are reals, it is far from being proven that they are defamatory in the sense of the law.

it's more reasonable to conclude that Magnus was victim, to a certain extend, of the general climat of distrust surrounding chess and Magnus being Magnus he tought it would take balls of steel to cheat him.

so, clearly, Magnus felt there was foul play, and players could not trust the results anymore.
Fide did not reprimended Magnus for false cheating allegations as they did in GM Solozhenkin's case. instead, they concluded the cheating allegations by Magnus enough plausible to put in place exceptional counter measures into place.


the other issue Hans faces is his credibility himself.

- history of cheating (he explained he was just "experimenting" online with chess engines)
- the coach Dugly (he said recently Dugly was not his mentor, nor his coach, but few years earlier he thanks him in an interview)

>"I’ve had many coaches along the way, but I would like to specifically thank GM Maxim Dlugy and two former U.S. Champions who have since died: IM John Grefe and GM Walter Browne."

- banned twice
- his exceptional ascension - poor explained
- his embellishments of his "professional" athlete career as cyclist
- his poor game analysis
- his behavior
- his numerous contradictions
- his average performance in chess since
- has access to an electronic engineer
- wons above average with blacks
- tends to use Stockfish's 2nd main line suggestion move in high complexity situation
- castle almost exactly when suggested by Stockfish
- accuracy increases drastically in middle game, especially against top players

like Hans, card counters find their way, from casino to casino
people do get caught cheating and it's never pretty

card counting is not cheating. Casinos merely have right to choose they customers. And still better they just should change the game offering to make counting useless (which is easy).

But yes the slander bar in USA is high. For example in UK if defendant claims the that slander was factual he/she needs to prove ti to be true. In Finland even true statement CAN be considered as offence if it was done with intent to harm.

Dunno about the "beyond reasonable doubt" is really so as this is not criminal court. But even beyond reasonable doubt is vague definition at best.

@Alientcp said in #42:
> As i said, tu quoque. It doesnt matter if others have cheated. They are not the ones opting to not play, It is irrelevant if Magnus has cheated or not.
Doesn't matter, it's not tu quoquo, I am not defending Niemann, I am illustrating the falsity of Carlsen's proposed agenda.

> 2 paragraphs before he said cheating is an existential treat to the game. Which it is in any sport.
Has Magnus himself partaken in cheating as per the video evidence?
>I dont know why you arent linking to that paragraph. Because you are constructing a narrative that is not there.
He follows that paragraph up with the statement that it was losing the game against Niemann that made him change his opinion about whether to do something about it. What he has done about it is not play against Niemann, and he has confirmed that this is the action that he has taken to do something about cheating. I don't know how much more I can explain. Perhaps if you read it a few more times, you will be able to hold more of the statement in your head at the same time, and see that there is an undeniable allegation. If you were looking for, "I hereby accuse Hans Niemann of cheating at the Sinquefield Cup against me." then you didn't see it, because it wasn't there, but that's not the only method of making an accusation.

> But not in order or the ideas behind that. In other words, out of the specific context, and thus, twisting words to make other meaning than the intended.
They are in order, not by some special intent, but just because you said that he didn't mention his name in the statement, and the subject of the statement was "My statement regarding the last few weeks." But it makes not difference if it was out of order any way, as they are merely quotes where Magnus used his name:
>"...round three against Hans Niemann."
>"When Niemann was invited..."
>"I believe Niemann has cheated..."
>"...permission form Niemann to speak..."
>"...to play chess with Niemann."

@Nomoreusernames said:
>Just because there is no video evidence of Niemann like there is for Magnus cheating, doesn't mean that Niemann didn't cheat.
@Alientcp said:
> Niemann admitted to have cheated in the past.
I haven't disagreed with that. The question is whether Magnus has accused him of cheating, which he has. But that's not in contention either, I think you mean whether Magnus accused him of cheating OTB, you say Magnus thinks Niemann cheated at Sinquefield Cup, and that is what is really being contended. Magnus has not only accused him, he has taken action over it, and he has justified the action as an action against cheating.

@Alientcp said:
>Nope. Magnus said he is not willing to play Niemann. Yes. You cant force him to do so. Thats his choice. The same way FIDE cant force him to defend his title. Its a choice.
@Nomoreusernames said:
>There is no "nope" to answer, it's not a matter of opinion, it is what Magnus said.
@Alientcp said:
> He stated an opinion.
No, he stated his intention, which he established based on his perspective from losing to Niemann, supposedly, and has already followed through with.

@Nomoreusernames said:
>Nobody is arguing that he is compelled to play chess, this discussion is about Magnus accusing Niemann.
@Alientcp said:
> I dont see it.
You said that the media are saying that Carlsen accused Niemann when he didn't, it is your argument. They never said that he must be compelled to play, and nor have I or anyone I have read in this forum.

> Its implying Niemann cheated, of course. I understand it, but I dont see the accusation. Its a belief/opinion he has, correct or incorrect, but an opinion non the less.
It is making an accusation and taking action against cheating, he states that this perspective and that his action derives from the game in the Sinquefield Cup.

> He makes perfect sense, he thinks Niemann cheated in st. louis. He may have additional information that we dont have to make him believe that. Still no accusation, just stating his opinion.
He has not only stated that he thinks Niemann has cheated based on their Sinquefield Cup game, but he has also taken action and has stated the reason for that action.

> Well, Magnus expressed his opinion. He thinks Niemann cheated. And thats exactly the point, if you cant have negative opinions because they can be labeled as slander or defamation, then, there is no free speech. That is why there must be a clear difference between an actual defamation (as in Amber accusing J publicly from hitting her, with a police report in hand for instance) and some one expressing a negative opinion about something or someone.
It's not a negative opinion, just as Amber overtly seems to have caused trouble for the police department and Depp, Magnus has done the same for the chess organisers, FIDE and Niemann, based on not just unsupported claims, but against the opinion of experts, statistical and physical scrutiny, and the evidence showing vastly in favour of the contrary.

> Thought he went silent for a while. I dont follow him. But i everyone is talking about the statement, not the other stuff. I dont see any accusation in the statement.
Perhaps you should consider if you are biased? It's not just mass media, there is only a very marginal fan base who are trying to defend Magnus on the basis that he hasn't made an accusation. You could take the stance that you expect his legal team to take, but they may not even dispute it as it is likely to show his word to be untrustworthy.

> Cant tell, i dont follow either.
You would if you were blacklisting someone right?

> But i did saw a video implying Niemann's accuracy in games was quite unusual and above basically all top GM's.
The analysis was done with clear notice that the software being used was not suitable for the purposes of the analysis, and further to that, the creator acknowledged the maths errors the day after posting it, and before the erroneous analysis had much attention at all. Substantiating falsehoods with analysis already known to be invalid is not a credible excuse for continuing false accusations.

@Nomoreusernames said:
>If Niemann doesn't stand up to Magnus, Hikaru and chess.corn, those with lacklustre morals still be trying to spread fiction about a teenager wearing "Magnus" beads. Magnus seems to be aspiring to the Hikaru and chess.corn poor ethics, and that is certainly not worthy of respect, you should be wiser than to conflate it with "free speech".
@Alientcp said:
> Im not sure if they made such statements.
> I just think that The suit against Carlsen wont have a favorable result for Niemann.
> Against Hikaru, no idea, i dont follow him either (i dont follow any chess celebrity, dont do much social media.)
> I think Niemann was uninvited from an event, unsure if it was on chess com or other. If it was chess com, they are private and they reserve the right to do what they please, and Niemann cheated there i think, so they have a claim why they uninvited.
You are offering your perspective on only the Magnus part in exclusion to the other parties, but Magnus is also a shareholder of PMG, which is in the process of merging with chess.corn, so there is a facet to the coordinated actions of the other parties to consider. Perhaps you should look into their actions to better assess Carlsen's potential liability?

Big questions here are: judge is White, so he opens the case, that's normal, but who get's to play whit black? Hans? and what will White play? e4, best by test, as Fischer said? and is Stockfish prepared for US law? I mean, can Hans cheat in the middle game here, as same people say? are final arguments like the end game? I'm confused an excited, so many questions...

@boilingFrog said in #40:
> I'm just sayin dude's a cheater ... by his own admission ...

You surely are talking about Sven M. O. Carlsen. He cheated online and admitted it immediately live on stream.

the Big Lie in the US: democrats rigged and stole the election

the Big Lie here: Magnus is the true cheater

@petri999 said in #44:
> Dunno about the "beyond reasonable doubt" is really so as this is not criminal court. But even beyond reasonable doubt is vague definition at best.

that's actually how it defines or sets 'the bar for slander' higher

actually, the law requires that these elements be established in a manner that meets the burden of proof.

the burden of proof in a civil lawsuit is usually, according to the U.S. jurisprudence, "by a preponderance of the evidence" (greater than 50% chance that the proposition is true).

it is also important to determine how courts have to interpret certain legal issues.
for instance, maybe in your case you want to argue that being called a "cheater" is a defamatory statement.

but, if previous situations established that this type of statement is merely an opinion, you will have a more difficult time proving your case. A blatant dishonesty is not automatically considered defamatory.

especially for public figures (celebs, politicians, etc.) and limited purpose famous figures (those who may not be household names, but are important within their particular fields), the burden of proof is higher, and requires actual malice, which means either intentional lying or reckless disregard of the truth.

however, in most cases involving defamation, the court will seek a resolution that is both uncomplicated and respectful of the 1st amendment, in indifference to the damage compensation seek.

this could mean accepting a retraction from the respondent published in the newspaper of record.

@Nomoreusernames said in #45:
> He has not only stated that he thinks Niemann has cheated based on their Sinquefield Cup game, but he has also taken action and has stated the reason for that action.

Yes, i dont see anything wrong with it.

He has a negative opinion of Niemann, which is totally fine in my eyes. I dont see an accusation.

He is not willing to play him. That is not illegal. He can refuse to play anyone he wants for the reason he wants, or no reason at all, he doesnt have to give any. You cant force him. Totally different to asking the rest to do so. I dont see call for action.

The reason i say tu quoque is because Niemann is not the one refusing to play Carlsen. Had the roles being reversed and Niemann was the one to refuse Carlsen and he was the one releasing the same statement, I wouldnt argue it either. Totally fine within free speech to my eyes.

The difference between this and the J case is that Amber wasnt giving an opinion, she accused him, first to the police, then to the public. This one is an opinion. No accusation.